Editorial: Finding real local consensus on regional plan

The state is pushing regional planning standards that could pave the way for building more multi-story housing complexes in Marin.

The 2008 state law is Sacramento's intent to reform land-use planning to reverse sprawl. The plan calls for handling growth by building jobs, housing, shopping and transit in a way that people can walk or ride their bikes rather than get into bumper-to-bumper traffic and long commutes.

Lawmakers assigned regional agencies with the task of drawing up local rules. In the Bay Area, that task is up to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the powerful gatekeeper of state and federal transportation dollars, and the Association of Bay Area Governments, a coalition of local counties and cities.

While few people argue with the overarching green objectives of the state plan, the political pushback is due to building densities detailed in the plan and the loss of local control.

The plan is an example of Sacramento's top-down intrusion into local land-use planning, even though its authors say counties and cities will still decide how to meet their fair-share affordable-housing quotas.

At Thursday evening's forum on the proposed plan, it was clear that local officials still have a lot of important questions.

That's why the county supervisors and each Marin city and town council should hold local public hearings and votes on the draft plan. Local meetings rather than regional presentations made and led by agency staffers would provide a clearer understanding of Marin's position.

Marin's representatives who will vote on the draft plan should represent a local consensus. Local meetings and votes by locally elected representatives may be the best way to determine that consensus.

The Plan Bay Area should be a model of democratic decision-making. It hasn't been. There have been several local meetings, but most have been run by staffers and hired facilitators, hardly an opportunity for the public to tell their decisionmakers what they think.

Critics are frustrated that approval of the plan is in the hands of two regional bodies.

Holding local hearings and local votes could answer that frustration, promote greater public awareness and comment and provide representatives with a clear understanding of local sentiments.

It is not expedient. However, it is important and probably overdue.

This public discussion needs to be held closer to the grassroots.

Marin is nearly built out and it is not the classic example of the sprawl that the state law hopes to reverse. Its much-prized growth restrictions, though, have regional environmental consequences. They might limit Marin's population growth and preserve open land, but they also have put pressure on neighboring counties to build more suburbs and have created longer pollution-generating commutes.

Marin needs to take a new, smarter look at the way it grows.

The Plan Bay Area is a regional vision that expands the power of regional agencies. It should not be approved without every community having its say.